Loading...
1-22-90 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 3~ Agenda Date January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Approval of the renewal of a residential kennel license for Janet Morrison who lives at 6337 21st Avenue South in Richfield. Background• On June 1,•1989, Mrs. Morrison was tagged for failure to obtain a kennel license. On July 3, 1989, Mrs. Morrison submitted a renewal application for a residential kennel license for the 5 dogs that She owns. All of the animals Mrs. Morrison owns are individually licensed, however, the kennel license had not yet been obtained. A residential kennel license is required whenever there are more than 2 dogs OR 2 cats residing on the property. On September 22, 1989, staff received a complaint of feces in the yard. The complaint was investigated and did appear to be a problem. A letter was sent to the Morrisons concerning the feces. A follow-up inspection was conducted on October 2, 1989 and found that the feces had been cleaned up. A second complaint was received by staff on October 18, 1989 concerning a substantial amount of feces on the property and barking dogs during the late evening hours. A letter was sent which addressed the feces, barking and failure to obtain a kennel license. It should be noted that Mrs. Morrison's kennel application had been misplaced and therefore City records indicated that she still had not made application for the kennel license. When Mrs. Morrison received the letter, she contacted staff to make them aware of the mix-up. After checking, it was determined that Mrs. Morrison had submitted the kennel application in July. She stated that on any given day, inspectors will find a larger than normal amount of feces on her property due to the fact that she has 5 dogs. She explained that the feces are picked up on a daily basis. She also explained that her dogs sleep inside the house and that the late night barking can't be from her animals. She suggests that possibly she is being blamed for barking that is coming from other resident's animals. It should also be noted that there were contacts with the Morrison's dogs by animal control personnel in 1989. They report. citing the Morrisons on three occasions that year for dogs running at large. Citations had also been written regarding the lack of a residential kennel license. Health Administrator Betsy Christensen contacted the two neighbors who have concerns about the renewal of the kennel ~~. / At the November 13, 1989 Council meeting the residential kennel license was granted to Mrs. Morrison. After the license was granted, two neighbors complained to the city about their concerns for renewal of the kennel license. The health administrator contacted the two neighbors who expressed concerns about the renewal of the kennel license on November 16, 1989 and again on January 9, 1990. The matter was discussed with Doris Ross of 6341 21st Avenue who is concerned that the dogs rush the fence when her grandniece is outside playing and frightens the child. While the dogs do not act in a vicious manner, Mrs. Ross is still concerned for the safety of her grandniece while she is outside. Mrs. Ross stated that she has never seen the dogs jump the fence. Mrs. Ross is also concerned about the appearance and. smell from the accumulation of the feces in the yard. She states that she is unable to use her backyard at times in the summer because of the smell, and that the feces are not picked up daily. Mr. Hefferan of 6345 21st was also contacted on November 16, 1989 and again with Mrs. Hefferan on January 10, 1990. Mrs. Hefferan is also were concerned with their granddaughter's safety as she also has been rushed by the dogs at their fence. Mrs. Hefferan stated that she has never seen the dogs jump the fence. Mrs. Hefferan was also concerned with the appearance and smell of the feces. She explained that she works several nights a week until midnight or so and said that she has additional concerns about the barking that takes place late in the evening by the dogs. She stated that it is not unusual for the dogs to be barking after 10:00 p.m. two - three times a week. Mrs. Hefferan has not called Public Safety when this has occurred. Mrs. Ross contacted city staff on January 4, 1990 to register a complaint regarding feces on the Morrison's property. The complaint was investigated on January 9, 1990 by animal control personnel who estimated that there appeared to be about a months' worth of feces in the yard that had not been picked up. A letter was left with the Morrison residence on January 9th stating that the feces must be cleaned up within five days. As of January 18, inspectors found that there was still alot of feces present in both the front and back yard. Recommended Motion: Revoke the residential kennel license for Janet Morrison, 6337 21st Avenue as a result of continuing complaints received by staff that relate to feces in the yard. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Prior to granting a residential kennel license renewal, it must be proven that the issuance of a residential kennel ~~-~- license will not have an adverse effect on the animal owner's neighbors. This has had an adverse effect on Mrs. Morrison's neighbors. 2. The accumulation of feces poses a health hazard. 3. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs or two cats does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mrs. Morrison has been unable to do this. 2. Neighbors continue relating to large On each occasion, and verified that Morrison has been problem continues a to contact staff with complaints accumulations of feces on the property. staff has inspected the property the complaints are valid. Mrs. contacted by staff and yet the to exist. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to approve Mrs. Morrison's residential kennel license with stipulations that would address the feces problems. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the January 22, 1990 council agenda for consideration. Respec f lly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:bac ~~~ 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged to individual dog license and issued warning for no residential kennel license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 3/27/89 Tagged for no individual license and no residential kennel license 6/1/89 Tagged for no residential kennel license ..:6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint complaint 9/22/89 Complaint complaint 10/18/89 Complaint complaint received regarding feces on property was verified by inspectors received regarding feces on property was verified by inspectors received regarding feces on property was verified by inspectors 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 30 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Appointments of persons to various advisory boards and commissions. Backcrround Several terms on city board and commissions expired January 31, 1990. In addition, some commissions have vacancies resulting .from resignations. Vacancies were advertised in the Richfield Sun Current and the Your City & Schools. Applicants were interviewed on January 10 and 11, 1990. A list of appointments to be made is attached. Recommended Motion: Appoint members to fill the terms on the various~~boards and commissions. Basis for Recommendation: 1. erms of members expired on January 31. In order to assure quo ms for future meetings, appointments should be made at this tim . Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer appointments to a later council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the January 22, 1990 council agenda for council consideration. Appointments will begin immediately. Respec u y submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/ej a ~~ a w H H a a Q 3 W z F z a o H a a w a a Q H z W F z H O a a z 0 H H 0 U NNNNNr-1 M MMM MMMNO MMM ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ O~ d~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ O~ ~ O~ O~ ~ O~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ O~ d~ O~ O~ ~ d~ ~ O~ d~ O~ O~ ~ ~ r-i e-I r-I H r-I r-i r-1 r-I rl r-I .--i rl r--1 e-1 r-i .--I r-I r-i . . . . . . ri ri rl H H H . r-I . . . r-I r-I r-I . . . . . r-I .--I r-1 r-I e-~ . . . e-i r-I r-I M M M M M M M M M M M MMM M M M M ~ Jti 'Jr 9ti Jr Jr ~ Jy Jr Jy Jr 9r Jy Jr Jy Jr Jti Jy S.a N S-i f-i ~ S-i Sa S-~ F-I Sa f-I ~I Sa ~l f-I ~I ~I ~-I rorororororo ro rororo rororororo rororo ~aa~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ rorororororo ro rororo rororororo rororo hhhhhh h hhh hhhhh hhh N O .r.{ O a a ro 3 O O O 4a ~~ aroi ao ~ ~ ~ ~~E N cad N ~~m (/~ h ,C; .--I ro O x w O b ro O w 0 ro •,~ ro Q +~ a a ro 3 N N 0 1 O .,~ .r., O U a~ U -~I a~ .,~ ~rl U ro N -~I O a a ro a~ a~ a~ x I O .,~ ro .~{ 0 U ro a~ U .,~ N a~ +~ .r., a 0 U a~ a~ a~ ~ O O O O O zzz s~ ~ a~i N .G ~ ~ •~ ro AUK bu~a .~ ~ ~ Ahh N G .,~ O a a ro 3 O G 0 3 +~ O a~ G .,~ 0 a a ro a~ O 3 I O .,~ .r., O U ro +~ rn .r., a ro x ro 0 .r., o~ •~ ~ ~~ ~m ~ ~ ~~ b .!~ ~ ~ N w cn ro N O .r., 0 a a ro a~ a~ O O .~ .r., 0 U a~ 0 .,~ D a~ ro x a~i ~ ~ ~~ roux U W ro ~~~ ~ ~ ~ wawa ~~~ O 0 z a~ E +~ .~ 0 a a ro 3 O N O +~ +~ +~ .,~ O a a ro O N a~ 0 i O .,~ .,~ O U rn .,~ ro a ch c+~ ~ O~ O- O~ ~ O~ O~ e-1 .--1 .--I d1 Q1 O~ r-I .--I r-I r-I '-i r-i ~ ri ~-I (~ (+') M C~ M (+') ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mom mrom hhh hhh a~ .,~ 0 a a ro 3 a~ a 3 O b m 3 b W U O z N +~ a~ ro +~ O ~ ~ •~ O a~ a ~ ~ O cd N i ~ ~~ ro~ ~ro O 3 .,.~ +~ +~ cd O ~ ~ O ~ +~ N ~ O H ''~ ~ ~ +~ ro •~ ~ U ~ N t11 +~ U~ ~~ •~+ a ~ ~- O +~ 0 +~ O A a h ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 29 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement• Revision of Chapter XI, Section 1100, Subsection 1110.03 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield. Background: The Legislature repealed Minnesota Statutes 624.42 through 624.54 during the 1989 session. Those provisions required dance hall operators to be licensed by local units of government and set out the mechanism for the licensing and regulatory activities of the local unit of government. The City Code references that statute as the source of authority for its public dance/dance hall ordinance and also for all matters not specifically addressed in the ordinance itself. Recommended Motion: Approve the revised dance hall ordinance in order to blend together the provisions of the repealed statute and the provisions of the current ordinance and end up with a "free standing" ordinance without statutory references. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Because the existing ordinance is directly tied to the repealed statute, it is probably no longer enforceable. 2. The Legislature, on the other hand, did not repeal Minnesota Statute 412.221, Subsection 27, which gives the Council authority to license and regulate the operation of public dance halls and the conduct of public dances. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the request to revise Subsection 1110.03 and decide not to license and regulate dance halls and public dances. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Council should consider the first reading of the revised ordinance Chapter XI, Subsection 1110.03 at the January 22, 1990 Council meeting. Respectf ly submitted, Jams Prosser Cit anager JDP:JDE/lmv ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 28 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter XX, adding Section 2025 - "Skateboards and Roller Skates". Background• Because of•the skateboard activities in the Hub Shopping Center and in public areas of the Richfield Pool, Arena, various tennis courts, Community Center and Nature Center, staff has prepared an ordinance regulating the use of skateboards, rollerblades, roller skates and roller skis in certain areas. Both the Hub Merchants Association and Richfield citizens have asked for assistance in regulating the use of these devices in shopping areas, where pedestrians are endangered and private property becomes damaged from these activities. The Community Services Department has also requested that tennis courts, the entrance/sidewalk areas at the pool, arena, community center and nature center be included in this ordinance in an effort to reduce risk to people and city-owned facilities by the use of these devices. The proposed ordinance addresses these concerns and imposes certain restrictions on the operation of these devices during nighttimes, on state highways, careless/reckless or negligent operation, yielding of the right of way, and attaching to any vehicle upon a roadway. Many cities, both nationwide and in Minnesota, have adopted similar ordinances, and the one proposed here reflects the best from many existing ordinances. Recommended Motion: Approve 'first reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter XX, adding Section 2025 - Skateboards and Rollerskates, and schedule second reading and the public hearing for the February 26, 1990 City Council meeting. Basis for Recommendation: This ordinance should effectively provide the public and local merchants with a tool that can protect both pedestrians and property, and can enhance the safety of those using the devices. Alternative Recommendation: Not approve first reading of this ordinance amendment/addition. ~~ Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading has been scheduled for the January 22, 1990 City Council Meeting, and second reading tentatively scheduled for the February 26, 1990 City Council Meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Cit anager ~J`' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 27 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Approval of first reading of an amendment changing the effective date of the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. Background• On October•9, 1989, the City Council approved the ordinance requiring the inspection of homes at the point of sale and the licensing of rental residential property effective March 1, 1990. On December 4, 1989, the City Council approved the recommendation that moved the implementation date of this ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. Council needs to consider whether to approve of an amendment to the ordinance that will reflect the October 1, 1990 implementation date. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends approval of first reading and setting a second reading and public hearing for February 12, 1990 of an ordinance amendment which changes the implementation date of the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The October 1, 1990 date will give the time needed to make the necessary preparation for implementation which includes: - Notification and education of area realtors, mortgage lenders and title companies of the point of sale requirements. - Selection and implementation of a data processing program to manage the license application and inspection records process. - Hiring and orientation of new staff. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to approve of the amendment which changes the implementation date of the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. This would mean that the City would not be in compliance with the date requirements of the current ordinance. 7'~v/ Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of a request for the approval of an amendment to the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance implementation date to October 1, 1990 and setting. February 12, 1990 for a second reading and public hearing. Respe ly Submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:bac ~~.2- Bill No. 1990 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Building, Housing and Construction Regulations" is hereby amended in the following respect: I. Subsection 405.25, Subd. 2(3) is amended to read as follows: (2 ) F.xr.Pn-ri c~n~ Apartment houses and rental homes which are existing and in operation prior to Ma~el~-~- nrt-nhPr 1~ 1990 may continue to operate notwithstanding the requirement of paragraph (1) of this Subdivision, provided a complete application therefor has been submitted to the City by A4a~eh-~- nc-t~hPr 1 1990 in accordance with paragraph (1) of Subdivision 3 of this subsection. Such operation may continue until a final determination is made by the City not to issue a license. II. Subsection 405.25, Subd. 3(1) is amended to read as follows:` (1 ) Apnli C.af:i nn: When MaciP By Ma~e~i-~- nrt-c~l~Pr 1 _ 1990, the owner of an apartment house or owner of a rental home shall apply to the director of public safety for the license required by subdivision 2 of this subsection. Application shall be made on forms provided by the city and accompanied by the initial fee required by subdivision 7 of this subsection. The owner of an apartment house or rental home constructed after said date shall submit a license application prior prior to actual occupancy of any apartment unit or rental home. III. Subsection 405.26, Subd. 1(1) is amended to read as follows: (1) No single or two family structure or dwelling unit which is a part of a multiple dwelling located within the city may be voluntarily conveyed for consideration by deed or contract for deed after A4a~e13-~- nrtohPr 1 1990, unless the person relinquishing ownership or the agent of such person has first applied for and secured a certificate of housing maintenance compliance. ~~`~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1990. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Steven J. Quam - Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Cl RC145-038 ~%' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 26 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Disposal of Wood Chips for an amount exceeding of $5,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Each year the street division's forestry activities, which include diseased elm removal and routine tree trimming, generate thousands of cubic yards of wood waste product. Logs which are too large to be chipped are hauled to the Hennepin County burn site. Clean wood chips are sold or given away to residents. However, the disposal of low quality chips from brush and small limbs has to be contracted out of the city. This year we were only able to obtain two quotations for this service, and both quotes were lump sum bids to haul and dispose of approximately 2,600 cubic yards of brush chips. The quotations are as follows: Mega, Inc. 58,000 Tri-State Tree Service, Inc. $6,000 The above quotations are for hauling chips resulting from 1989 work efforts. Disposal of chips created in 1988, an estimated 3,500 cubic yards, at a cost oc $3,500 was done by Mega, Inc. The current, recommended unit price would be approximately $2.31 per cubic yard compared to a previous actual rate of $1.00 per cubic yard. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order in the sum of $6,000 to Tri-State Tree Service, Inc. for the disposal of approximately 2,600 cubic yards of brush chips. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Tri-State Tree Service, Inc. has performed various services under contract for the Forestry Division for the past three years and has proven to be a reliable company. 2. The quote from Tri-State was the lowest price staff was able to obtain. 3. There is $8,500 in the 1990 budget for wood chip disposal. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject the quotes and direct staff to continue to search for a cheaper vendor. However, contractors who perform this service are becoming rare, and the ones who do provide this service have rates which reflect the current high landfill charges. ~~ ~~~ Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is continuing to search for of this material; but it continues difficult to dispose of each year. January 22, 1990 Council agenda. this time. alternate methods for disposal to be more expensive and This item appears on the Staff is requesting approval at Respe y submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP/reb ~/~/_-,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 25 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of animal kennel services for the City of Richfield for the year 1990. Background• The City of Bloomington has provided animal kennel services for the City of Richfield since 1982. This service has been very satisfactory. The fee structure of the Bloomington kennel is competitive with other alternative kennel facilities in the area. The proximity of the kennel to our city is conveniently located for residents who are picking up animals as well as continues to reduce travel time and costs for our Community Services Officers. It should be noted that there is no fee increase in the 1990 contract for the services that are provided by the City of Bloomington. Recommended Motion: Approve the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of animal kennel services for the year 1990. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of kennel services to Richfield staff and residents. Based upon the proximity, past relationship, and conscientious kennel administration, it is recommended that the City of Richfield continue to contract with the City of Bloomington for animal control. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to have Richfield provide its own kennel services. The costs involved in hiring staff to provide the same level of services and administrative support to operate a kennel efficiently and effectively would require a budget increase. Discussion/Decision Mode: The renewal of the agreement between Richfield and the City of Bloomington for 1990 for the provision of animal kennel services is being presented for council approval. Respectfu ly Submitted, James Prosser City anager ~~%~ ~ This Agreement executed on the day of , 1990, by and between the City of Bloomington, a municipal corporation, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter called "Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal -.corporation {hereinafter called "Richfield"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington has facilities for the impoundment of animals available for the use of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Richfield is desirous of using Bloomington's ,:facilities for the impoundment and storage of animals-which are impounded pursuant to the ordinances of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed on the type of use and manner of use by Richfield of Bloomington' impoundment facilities; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Richfield may deliver animals to Bloomington's impoundment facilities, and Bloomington will board said animals for the sum of Eight Dollars ($8.00) per day, per animal, to be paid by Richfield. 2. That Bloomington shall assume the responsibility for releasing animals, delivered to Bloomington by Richfield Animal Control personnel, to those owners wishing to redeem said animals. ~~,%~ ~ 3. That in the event that an impounded animal must be disposed of pursuant to Minnesota Statutes or City Ordinances, Bloomington will do so at a charge of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) per animal, to be paid by Richfield. 4. That Richfield will indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, its officers, agents, officials and employees from claims, suits, actions, damages, and costs arising out of the impoundment, medical treatment, or destruction of animals delivered to Bloomington by Richfield. 5. That Richfield shall comply with all Kennel operating procedures established by Bloomington. It is understood and agreed that Bloomington shall, if necessary, have the authority to arrange for veterinary care of sick or injured animals impounded at the Bloomington kennel by Richfield and that-the costs of such veterinary services will be the responsibility of Richfield. 6. This Agreement shall be for a period of one year, beginning January 1, 1990, and shall be automatically renewed from year-to-year on the last day of December unless either party has given thirty day's prior written notice that it intends to terminate the Agreement. 7. In addition to termination pursuant to paragraph 6 (above) either party may terminate, without cause, at any time upon thirty day's written notice of immediately for breach of the Agreement. 8. The boarding and disposal fees referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 (above) may be administratively adjusted from time-to- -~~/~o~ time without a formal amendment of this Agreement. Such adjustment shall be made in accordance with the following procedure: a. Fee adjustments may be made when Bloomington has, by council action, adjusted its boarding or disposal fees for its own residents. b. The adjusted fees shall not exceed the amounts set by Bloomington for its own residents. c. Initiation of a fee adjustment shall be made by thirty day's written notice thereof to Richfield. d. The adjusted fees shall be come effective unless, within 30 days receipt of the notice of adjustment, Richfield terminates this Agreement. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Reviewed and Approved by the BY: City Attorney. BY: City Attorney Its Mayor Its Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD BY: Its Mayor BY: Its Manager 7-~ ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. ~_. Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Purchase of an electrostatic camera replacement for the City's print shop. Background• An electrostatic camera makes master plates for the type of offset printing press owned and operated by the City's print shop. The print shop is part of the Central Services division and provides in-house printing for city divisions. The print shop prints materials such as purchase orders, motor vehicle receipts, public safety forms and crime prevention brochures, special assessment letters and the community center newsletter. The camera currently in use in the print shop was purchased in 1980, and has been fully depreciated. Replacement of the camera is requested because it is outdated and because of its age, it has become unreliable. Parts are hard to get and therefore repairs are expensive. The 1990 Central Services budget contains $14,000 set aside for this equipment replacement. Staff conducted a local vendor search and found two suppliers of this type of camera. Written quotes were received from both of these vendors. The equipment proposed by each vendor meets our requirements. ABDick of Bloomington submitted a proposal for an ITEK model 616S. Their price quote is $11,615. This is a net cost which includes a trade-in allowance of $3,000 for our current camera, shipping and training. Staff feels that this trade-in amount is generous. PERFECION TYPE INC. of Minneapolis submitted a proposal for a Mitsubishi model CP-310. Their price quote is $14,770. PERFECTION TYPE INC. will not take our camera as a trade-in. We will have to sell it on our own. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of an ITEK 616S electrostatic camera from ABDick of Bloomington with the trade-in of the City's ITEK 175 camera for a net cost of $11,615. Basis for Recommendation: The ITEK camera from ABDick is recommended because: 1. ABDick submitted a proposal with the lowest cost including a fair value for our trade-in. 2. The equipment proposed by ABDick meets the City's requirements. ~~G'/ 3. The City has had good experience with this vendor and brand of equipment over the last 10 years. 4. The proposal of ABDick falls within the amount budgeted for this purchase in the 1990 budget. Alternative Recommendations: Council could direct staff to conduct a wider vendor search to obtain quotes from other than local vendors. Staff feels that the ABDick quote is very competitive and that further efforts will be of little value. In addition, the camera is currently in need of repair and a delay in acquiring a replacement would incur the cost of repairing the current equipment. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests that this purchase be approved at the January 22 Council meeting so that delivery of the camera can be taken as soon as possible. The current equipment is in need of repair. Respectfull submitted, James Prosser City ager JDP:sae ~!/- L~~. a~ D QUOTATION TO: City of Richfield Date: January 10, 1990 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield MN Prices quoted hereon are firm for 30 days from above date. Item I Quantity I Description I Unit Price I Totai No. 1 1 Itek 616S Platemaker $13,69.5 2 1 Shipping, Handling and Training $ 920 $14,615 *Minus Trade-In of Itek 175 ( 3,000) TOTAL $11,615 For your convenience this quotation becomes an order when authorized within firm quotation period. quotation Accepted By: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Title• Date: P.O. No.' Terms: Net Upon Receipt of Invoice r.~e3-, Anticipated Delivery After Receipt of Order C~Quote includes transportation ^ Plus transportation of: ~~ ~ -~- RYOBI • ATF/OMNI • MGD • PIVANO • COUNT • CHALLENGE • ROSBACK • STANDARD • INTERLAKE • MBO • WOHLENBERG • DS AMERICA - WE SERVICE WHAT WE SELL - PRINTING, BINDERY EQUIPMENT ~ l! O TAT I O N AND SUPPLIES PERFECTION TYPE, INC. 2716 NICOLLETAVENUE • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 • (612) 872-6691 IN MN 1-800-752-4249 OR OUTSIDE MN 1-800-328-4815 To City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Mpl s., MN 5 5 4 2 3 ATTN: By Perfection Salesman Joe Richardson Date 1/15/90 nueur~rv -- DESCRIPTION 1 Mitsubishi CP310 Platemaker PRICE 14 770.Oi F.O.B. Factor 90 Da Labor/One Year .Parts Warrant . re w ntt- ~~~ ~.., ..........~ TOTAL SALE (1) $ 14 , 7 7 0.0 0 . nr~tvc-11r CV[~/11'MCIV 1 1. TERMS OF SALE: CONTRACT ^ NET SALE AFTER TRADE-IN $ TOTAL SALE $ PLUS SALES TAX (3) to be financed as follows.... . Down Payment + Tax with P.O. $ Balance of Down Payment due upon delivery $ TOTAL $ Balance....$ (Payable @ $ monthly in equal installments) Annual Percentage Rate ............ . 2. TERMS OF SALE: SIMPLE L~~ 3. LEASE QUOTATION (THIRD PARTY~* TOTAL SALE: (1) plus (3) $ Term (months) $ Down Payment + Tax with P.O. $ 10 $ w/P . O . Monthly Rental $ Balance of Down Payment Due On Delivery Advance Payments $ Invoice Purchase Option $ Completion, Installation & Training $ 'Approximate figures only. Please enter our order for equipment listed above as quoted: Purchase Order # Firm CITY OF RICHFIELD By ALL QUOTATIONS ARE FIRM FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS. SUBJECT TO CHANGE THEREAFTER. NOTE: Delivered and Erected prices, when quoted, are F.O.B. Customer's City. Rigging, drayage, electrical service, erector's travel and living expenses are to be Paid by purchaser. Perfection will supply a machinist to supervise installation of equipment and instruct in operation and maintenance. This offer is made subject to acceptance by the company at Minneapolis, Minn. T- ~ j~l-,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 23 Agenda January.: 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Renewal of a contract for computer hardware maintenance for 1990. Backcxround The City contracts with outside vendors for the maintenance of its computer system hardware. During the fall of 1987 the City requested bids from several vendors for this service. Based on the proposals submitted, the Council awarded the 1988 contract to Financial Products Corporation (FPC), the low bidder. In late 1988 the Council authorized renewal of the contract for the calendar year 1989. From time to time the City has modified the contract by adding and deleting pieces of equipment. Because there have been more additions than deletions of equipment, the cost of the contract has risen from $20,000 in 1988 to $33,000 in 1989. The 1990 contract will begin at $35,672. However, all changes to the dollar value of the contract are due to equipment modifications made by the City. FPC guaranteed and has held to their bid prices for three years (through the end of 1990). Last year, before recommending renewal of the contract for 1989, staff consulted with the City Attorney's office regarding whether or not new bids were required. They responded that the renewal is not a new and independent contract and therefore public bidding is not required. Other than the additions and deletions of equipment, the 1990 renewal is the same as the 1989 renewal. Because of the large quantity of computer equipment owned by the City, the total cost of maintenance is high. Staff intends to study options to the traditional maintenance agreement to see if a workable and less costly alternative is available to the City. Maintenance companies are beginning to offer new plans which may provide such an option by the end of the year. Recommended Motion: That the City Manager be authorized to renew the City's contract with Financial Products Corporation for computer hardware maintenance for the period from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. Basis for Recommendation• 1. FPC has provided very competent and prompt service to the City during the past two years. This high level of service is critical because of the dependence of staff on their computer equipment. 2. FPC rates continue to be very competitive. Staff compared FPC's rates to those included with the bids we received for new equipment this past year and found FPC's to be lower. ~y~ _ 3. The 1990 Data Processing budget has $38,760 set aside for this equipment maintenance contract. Alternative Recommendations: The Council could direct staff to request bids for the maintenance contract. Discussion/Decision Mode• Council action to award the contract is requested at the January 22 meeting. Respectf y submitted, James Prosser City nager ~`~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 22 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement• Contract award for one used hydraulic articulated motor grader. Background• A formal bid opening was held January 5, 1990 for one used hydraulic articulated motor grader. The specifications called for a base bid, a price for trading in a 1959 Caterpillar Motor Grader, and the total price. The results are as follows: Company Ziegler, Inc. Carlson's Lake Midwest Indust: Carlson's Lake Road Machinery Base Bid $68,500 State Equip. $83,740 rial Machines $91,500 State Equip. $86,345 & Supplies $96,850 Trade-In Total ($ 5,500) $63,000 (S 3,500) $80,240 (S 8,700) $82,800 (S 3,500) $82,845 ($11,000) $85,850 The bid specifications called for the grader to be a 1985 or newer model.. The low bid was for a Caterpillar 120G. Only Ziegler, Inc. and one of Carlson's Lake State Equipment Co. bids met the specifications as written. A couple of the other bidders raised the question that the Serial Number for this unit indicated the grader was a 1984 model. However, the Caterpillar Company has been contacted and they sent a letter stating the unit was, in fact, manufactured in 1985. Recommended Motion: Award a contract for purchase of one used Hydraulic Articulated Motor Grader to Ziegler, Inc. for the net sum of $63,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The unit bid by Ziegler, Inc. met specifications as written by staff, and was the lowest bid submitted. 2. The approved 1990 Central Garage budget contains $70,000 for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to reject all bids and direct staff to rebid. However, staff does not believe we will obtain a better price for the type of unit desired from a reputable dealer. Council could choose to award to another vendor. However, Ziegler, Inc. met all the specifications and submitted the lowest bid. Staff does not find a reason to reject Ziegler's bid. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item appears on the January 22, 1990 Council agenda. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate delivery of the motor grader. Resp c lly submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP:sae CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~~ Bid Opening January 5, 1990 11:00 A.M. One Used Hydraulic Articulated Motor Grader Bid No. 90-1 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for one used hydraulic articulated motor grader, bid no. 90-1, as advertised in the official newspaper on December 13, 1990. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Communicy Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID BID SECURITY $96,850.00 RMS Road Machinery 5$ Type: Dresser & Supply Co. Bid Bond -11,000.00 Savage, MN Trade-in $86,345.00 Carlson's Lake 5% John Deere State Equipment Co Bid Bond - 3,500.00 Burnsville, MN Trade-in 583,740.00 Carlson's Lake 5$ John Deere State Equipment Co Bid Bond - 3,500.00 Burnsville, MN Trade-in $91,500.00 Midwest Industrial 5% Caterpillar Machine, Inc. Bid Bond - 8,700.00 Fargo, ND Trade-in $68,500.00 Ziegler, Inc. 5$ Caterpillar Minneapolis, MN Bid Bond - 5,500.00 Trade-in TOTAL $85,850.00 $82,845.00 $80,240.00 $82,800.00 $63,000.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 22, 1990 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21 Agenda January 22, 1990 Issue Statement: Comments on the 1494 Reconstruction Project Scoping Document. Background• The City of Richfield has received copies of the I494 Scoping Document and copies have been provided to each Council member. The Scoping Document describes the alternatives, and the potential impacts of those alternatives, for the reconstruction of 1494 from the Minnesota River in Bloomington to I394 (Trunk Highway 12) in Minnetonka. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the I494 reconstruction project. The purpose of the Scoping Document is to help define the alternatives and issues that will be studied in the EIS. In the appendix of the Scoping Document is a draft Scoping Decision. The purpose of the draft Scoping Decision is to indicate the tentative decisions on the alternatives and issues to be studied in the EIS. These decisions may be changed based on comments received on the Scoping Document. A public Scoping meeting was held January 17, 1990 at the Edina Community Center. At this public meeting, both oral and written comments were accepted. Comments on the Scoping Document may be submitted through January 24, 1.990. Written comments are to address the accuracy of the information presented in the Scoping Document and the alternatives and issued proposed for study in the EIS. The City Council may or may not choose to make comments to be presented prior to the deadline. The Richfield Ad Hoc 135W/I494 Traffic Committee met January 18, 1990. The Ad Hoc Committee took action recommending the Council make comment on the I494 Scoping Document. Those recommendations are attached to and made a part of this letter. Recommended Motion: Direct staff, on behalf of the City of Richfield, to make official comment on the 1494 Scoping Document as recommended by the Richfield Ad Hoc 135W/2494 Traffic Committee. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield recognizes the need for improvements in the I494 traffic corridor. 2. The City of Richfield has actively participated in a study of the I494 traffic corridor. 3. Recommendations for comment are based on the city staff and the Ad Hoc I35W/I494 Traffic Committee having spent Considerable time reviewing the proposed I494 Scoping. Document and elements of the proposed reconstruction project ~/ leading up to the I494 Scoping Document. 4. It is in the best interest of the City of Richfield to comment on the I494 Scoping Document. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not make any comments. However, a "no comment" may be considered an indirect comment. 2. Amend or delete any of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc 135W/I494 Traffic Committee and/or add new comments. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the January 22, 1990 Council agenda. It is imperative action be taken at this time if comments are to be made prior to the close of the I494 Scoping Document comment period on Wednesday, January 24, 1990. Respect y submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/sdr Attachment ~~ ~/ ~. Council Letter No. 21 - Attachment Page 1 of 3 Agenda January 22, 1990 It is the recommendation of the city staff and the Richfield Ad Hoc 135W/I494 Traffic Committee that, the following comments be officially made regarding the Scoping Document for the I494 Reconstruction Project: With regard to Parallel Arterials, the City of Richfield feels an adequate support roadway system is essential. In anticipation of the need to replace the existing 2494 frontage road(s), Richfield has put forth great time, effort and expense to determine an alternate frontage road system. Richfield's 2494 frontage road divides into two major portions, one to the east of I35W and one to the west of I35W. As noted on page 8 of the I494 Scoping Document, 77th Street is to accommodate increased traffic volumes between Trunk Highway 77 (TH77) and I35W. This improvement is again referenced on Table 5 (page 18), I494 Corridor Study Recommended Implementation Schedule. This table indicates construction of TH77 and 77th Street short-range interchange and arterial street improvements are to begin in 1988 to 1990. An indirect reference to the 77th Street alternate frontage road begins on page 38 and is included as part of the TH77/I494 system interchange alternatives. Specifically, the TH77 Corridor Study has developed an alternative that would carry 77th Street under TH77. The alternative would also provide access to and from the north on TH77 at 77th Street. Part of the reason for anticipated increased traffic on (replacement) frontage road(s) relates to access interchange alternatives proposed for study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as illustrated on Figure 12 and as described on page 43. The 12th Avenue interchange is also referenced on page 39 as part of the TH77/I494 Interchange discussion. The City of Richfield draws particular attention to Figure 13, Potential Impact Area. The figure currently indicates little or no impact north of 77th Street, east of I35W. It is Richfield's opinion that there will be an impact north of 77th Street, probably at least to 76th Street. We suggest the impact area be adjusted to reflect this comment. As for Parallel Arterials north of I494 and west of I35W, as referenced on page 8, the Scoping Document indicates the corridor study included a strategy to continue to provide for through traffic on 76th Street between I35W and France Avenue and also to establish 78th Street as a one-way street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue to intercept westbound trips at the Penn Avenue interchange. Richfield continues to examine alternatives for the best possible alternate I494 frontage road configuration west of I35W. A final determination has not been made by Richfield. ~~/~ Council Letter No. 21 - Attachment Page 2 of 3 Agenda January 22, 1990 Comments on the I494 Traffic Corridor Study Final Report were submitted by the City of Richfield in 1987. It is Richfield's continuing opinion that frontage road/parallel arterial strategy is highly dependent on the I494 mainline. We suggest a final determination of parallel arterial/frontage road strategy between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue be based on findings of the EIS and may not be made until the results of the EIS are final. It is the further opinion of the City of Richfield that alternate frontage roads and/or parallel arterials must be provided before access is closed; specifically, improve 77th Street east of I35W. and construct the TH77 tunnel before altering access at 12th Avenue, Portland Avenue or Nicollet Avenue. It continues to be the opinion of the City of Richfield that planning standards for alternate frontage roads/parallel arterials should include, but not necessarily be limited to: 1) safety, 2) where applicable, a residential character as good or better than currently exists, 3) where applicable, commercial access as good or better than currently exists and 4) buffering and other geometrics to protect the total integrity and quality of life in the community. Access Interchanges are discussed on page 8 of the Scoping Document. In that discussion, it is noted the bridges over I494 at Nicollet Avenue and 12th Avenue would remain. These access interchanges are further discussed beginning on page 43. The 12th Avenue interchange is also mentioned as part of the TH77/I494 interchange discussion beginning on page 37. It is in this discussion that comment is made to not only retain the 12th Avenue bridge, but to widen the bridge over I494. This notation is most likely based on Richfield's comment to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the TH77/I494 Improvement Project: "The design should provide for pedestrian and non- motorized traffic across both I494 and TH77." Richfield has recently completed an updating of its Master Park Plan. It is suggested in that Plan that, wherever possible, use be made of space adjacent to freeways for the provision of a bike/hike trail. This element of the Master Park Plan has a high priority in Richfield's park system. The I494 Scoping Document notes on page 49 that Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations will be a part of the EIS. It is the continued opinion of the City of Richfield that bicycles and pedestrians are important to the total, overall picture of traffic considerations. Bridges, tunnels, intersections and other design features should be wide enough to accommodate such non-motorized traffic. It must be kept in mind that Minnesota winter's include snow and sufficient space should be provided for motorized, non-motorized and pedestrian traffic to safely use our transportation system on a year round basis. ~~ y Council Letter No. 21 - Attachment Page 3 of 3 Agenda January 22, 1990 Such space allocation must take into account the need for snow removal and snow storage. It is the further opinion of the City of Richfield that effective use of right-of-way would be to provide for bicycle and pedestrian traffic whether or not such traffic extends beyond a municipal boundary. The discussion of Mainline Alternatives, beginning on page 29, indicates the concept of dedicating a lane as a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane will continue to be studied. It is the opinion of the City of Richfield that there must not be a predisposition or bias toward HOV lanes in EIS considerations. It is noted on page 20, during the discussion of Geometric and Roadway Deficiencies, that the storm water system along I494 is no longer adequate. While discussing the Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff impacts to be considered in the EIS, page 59, it is noted the build alternatives may result in increased runoff. It is the opinion of the City of Richfield that, in addition to runoff and drainage systems, storage systems should also be considered. Temporary storage systems within the I494 roadway design or as a part of drainage system may be indicated as a result of the EIS. Although Light Rail Transit (LRT) was dismissed as an alternative in the I494 Corridor Study because ridership is low and will not be included in the 2494 EIS, there is a reference on page 35 to the Hennepin County Twenty-Year Comprehensive LRT System Plan which recommended light rail transit service in a south corridor through Richfield and Bloomington with possible extensions along the I494 corridor. LRT is being included in the 135W EIS with consideration for placement on the Soo Line railway or in the 135W traffic corridor. It continues to be the opinion of the City of Richfield that low ridership and high capital cost do not make LRT an effective alternative. Although not directly related to the I494 Scoping Document, Richfield continues to resist LRT on the Soo Line railway, and does not currently see any need for LRT extensions along the I494 corridor through Richfield. The I494/135W interchange alternatives are being analyzed in the 135W EIS. Because the results of the 235W EIS with regard to this interchange will be included in the I494 EIS discussion, Richfield would like to make comment. It continues to be the opinion of the City of Richfield that access in all directions to and from I35W and I494 is of utmost importance to Richfield. It appears the "ring road" concept is the only option or alternative which will allow full access. One final "housekeeping" note. The Table 4 Project Schedule, found on pages 14 and 16, should probably read that the Public Scoping Meeting is January 1990 and the Scoping Decision is February 1990.